Table 3.
Conceptual framework | La Sala et al, 201536 | Andrew et al, 201237 | Hamilton et al, 200938 | Michinov et al, 200823 | Simon and Stewart, 200739 | Davenport et al, 20073 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Structure | ||||||
Recognizing leadership | x | x | ||||
Team skills/specializationa | x | x | x | |||
Commitment to patients | x | |||||
Emotional exhaustion/stress | x | x | ||||
Clear roles and responsibilities | x | x | ||||
Working conditions (quality of the work)a | x | |||||
Process | ||||||
Communication among teammates | x | x | ||||
Team coordination | x | x | x | x | x | |
Value the teamwork | x | x | x | x | ||
Outcome | ||||||
Team cohesion (collective efficacy) | x | x | ||||
Overall perceived team effectiveness | x | x | ||||
Improved task competencya | x | x | x | |||
(Postteamwork) job satisfaction | x | x | ||||
Would refer others to this teama | x |
In the surgical settings, we used both Donabedian and CTEF framework to identify contextual nature of teamwork sills and performance.
Concepts showed only surgical settings.